7.28.2007 | Say Yes to a Full Pint

Sometimes you just gotta stand up and be counted. Seems like Nanny Britain has gone too far, by having a beer regulation but then not enforcing the requirement that when you buy a pint at your local pub, you'll actually get a bleedin' pint.

One may ask, what business is it of the government of a formerly powerful nation to worry about the measure of ale or bitters at a licensed establishment? Good question. Correct answer: it's exactly because Britain is toothless and has exchanged its manhood for dhimmitude that they get involved in nonsense like regulating, to a fare-thee-well, things like beer.

Evidence? You think the recent surrender to the Iranians was a fluke? Or the incessant worry that one of the poor royal princes might get shot at? Used to be, English monarchs were in front of the troops in the field, not whoring it up back home (can you tell I'm a republican Republican?). Good thing the Argentines don't ask for a rematch over the Falklands; they'd kick John Bull's ass all the way back to England.

Anyway, there's a group that isn't going to take this affront to British liberty (this is now a contradiction in terms, it seems...) lying down: "Say Yes to a Full Pint." There's also the related "Campaign for Real Ale." Oi, I'm in favor of real ale. But, how, exactly, has this become any kind of a problem?

As a side note, please understand two things: a) I love my British cousins, and, b) Brits generally drink much, much better beer than us Americans. I mean, Bud Lite? Natty Bo? Gah. But we don't need to have the insane regulations that permeate British life. If an establishment shorts me on a beer once, I'll mention it. If it happens the second time, there are lots of other places to get beer.

Perhaps for England, its the proximity to Ireland, which, as we all know, taught the English everything they need to know about brewing good beer and drinking it. Too bad the English are slow learners, and don't establish a free republic like the Irish.

7.19.2007 | "a duty to lead a full and happy life"

A little something from Richard Pipes, via Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus:

The main effect of the Holocaust on my psyche was to make me delight in every day of life that has been granted to me, for I was saved from certain death. I felt and feel to this day that I have been spared not to waste my life on self-indulgence or self-aggrandizement but to spread a moral message by showing, using examples from history, how evil ideas lead to evil consequences. Since scholars have written enough on the Holocaust, I thought it my mission to demonstrate this truth using the example of communism. Furthermore, I felt and feel that to defy Hitler, I have a duty to lead a full and happy life...

Living well, insofar as "well" doesn't mean material wealth, but, rather, enjoying one's liberty to the fullest, is indeed the best revenge on those who would deny liberty to us.

By the way, I had the privilege to have had Richard Pipes as a guest lecturer when I attended the War College at Fort McNair. Impressive, and inspiring.

10.07.2006 | Right up there with "black is white"

Consider this from a "nationally recognized employment law expert" named Gregg, in his advice to a Wisconsin state legislative committee (as reported by the LaCrosse Tribune):

Gregg, who is white, said the point system aimed at veterans helped launch his career and that affirmative action "helps everyone" by ensuring equal access to opportunity in the hiring process. Without affirmative action, hiring decisions largely would be based on favoritism, he said.

There are two parts to this Orwellian hash. The first is that preferential hiring of veterans who are not disabled is a good thing. More on this below.

What is truly Orwellian is the notion that "affirmative action" somehow, ensures "equal access" to oppotunity. Wasn't the very nature of affirmative action to give unearned preference to approved groups in order to compensate for real or perceived discrimination? Well, that's the nose of the camel peeking under the tent, as they say. It isn't long until the whole smelly beast is inside.

Well, the smelly beast that is racialism in the form of unearned preferences in hiring has now convinced at least one idiot that "inequality" is "equality." I don't agree that any group should have an unearned advantage in this day and age. But I can understand those who sincerely believe that certain groups still need such preferences in hiring.

Regardless of what I or you believe, however, it is impossible in logic to give one group preference in hiring and then turn around and claim that all groups have "equal access" to opportunity. Both things can not be true.

Such is the nature of those who still patronize blacks and other groups by telling them that they are not good enough to compete on their own. Keep on telling them that, and there's a better chance that they never will be good enough.

As for veteran's preference, that is different. These are men (mostly, but not exclusively) who have served their nation. Many have put their lives on the line in combat. They deserve preference; they've earned it.

Contrast this earned preference with those who were born with what is now the politically correct set of genes or ethnicity. Such preferences are inimical to liberty, they are unamerican, and should be ended forthwith.